Hobbes And Jean Jacques-Rousseau Analysis

Good Essays
Freedom as a concept implies absolute power over one’s self and property. Through the works of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques-Rousseau, we have seen different ways of interpreting the role of property and freedom not only in relation to one’s self, but also within a community, and a political society. Hobbes acknowledges the power dynamics in a society that alter the way in which we live and consequently rebel. He understands the mutual relationship of property and freedom as a fixed obligation of the common man to submit their freedom to a ruler or government through a “social contract,” thus becoming the state's property in hopes of “self-preservation.” Rousseau, however, argues that the development of inequality is a byproduct …show more content…
Although we have many rights, we unknowingly give many of them up to our political society; our government. One government, however, cannot guarantee safety and self-preservation to all its subjects through the “social contract” Hobbes adheres to. They must pick and choose who is worthy of this even if everyone has innate rights. This judgment is not dictated by one’s loyalty to the government, instead, it is motivated by self-interest and prejudice that constantly fluctuates from leader to leader who decides what group or individual has freedom. Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time. There is no homogenous group in one society, therefore a ruler cannot truly make one decision that appeases all, they can, however, make decisions that help some and hurt others. This is when Hobbes theory on ownership for self-preservation becomes flawed. Although his way of thought has informed many governments it has also done what he hoped it wouldn’t; provide an unsafe environment that directly threatens lives. Proving that ownership cannot guarantee a free society it is only a quick resolution to a mountain of overlying issues that may possibly go

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    When considering the guidelines for humanity, philosophers and leaders alike come to unravel the fabric of society by constructing a system that is tailored towards preserving liberty. The political philosopher John Locke helps to bring to light the nature of humanity and how it can be structured around a social contract. This contract would enable individuals certain rights by allowing government officials to enforce a law that protects members of society from being oppressed or denied freedom. I admire the virtues in which Locke fights for; namely, the right to life, liberty, and owning property. These essential virtues, when under the political structure of Locke’s philosophy, helps society from being oppressed by a tyrannical government…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They were given this responsibility by Parliament and it is an important role they must fulfil. The judiciary tend to use deference on national security matters because they are not experts on the issue. However, deference might not be the correct decision in all cases because most cases are on matters of procedure, rather than expertise; in those cases the courts should not refuse to decide the cases on the basis that they are security decisions and outside their expertise . The fact the government and Parliament are best placed to assess risk for national security can be questioned since they were wrong on the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion . Their decision making can always be questioned by the fact that Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot in the head on the assumption that he was a suicide bomber when he was not .…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Even though Hobbes says we can vote for who we want to run the country, we need to be able to have a system that can best represent all the people and if the government breaks any laws, they are held accountable. (RUN ON SENTENCE) I think Kant’s use of freedom is key to enlightenment. Without freedom no one can be enlightened and thus, many people would be living a unhappy life. Why extend your life with…

    • 1567 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In order to make his theory adaptable, Mill does not include a general standard for harm and government interference. He leaves this up to the states with just a few guidelines because he believes his theory can apply to many forms of government and societies. His “harm principle” is more universal than most social contract theories in that it can be the basis of many different government styles. Mill believes if a man is solely harming himself, the action is a part of his liberties. If his actions interfere with another’s freedom, he begins to break the social contract and the government has the capability to intrude (Mill 79).…

    • 1516 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    If someone disobeys the law it is best solved by the popular opinion and believes in the direct interaction of the people with the laws they must obey. Rousseau uses collectivism as a way for people to actively present their own views while also using This collectivism is best exemplified in his definition of the “general will”. He calls for all members of society to subordinate their own will for the general goal set forth by society. Rousseau does not believe that surrendering freedom to a leader provides any benefit and encourages intervention by the individual on a political level. With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power.…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Also, it is appropriate to go against the government if done so peacefully. Back in the day, equality was something that was not typically found. Throughout the world, quality is not the same. Whether it be about ethnicity, religion, or gender the government should not be able to endorse any form of prejudice. If the government is endorsing any form of mistreatment or any quality than the people have every right to go against their government.…

    • 1591 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    American Greed Analysis

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Governments are always existing with some sort of hierarchical power, as Huntington insists. The nature of bureaucratic government is a counter to the American Creed. As Huntington states, “The Government can never, however, reflect those principles perfectly (American Creed), and is therefore illegitimate to the extent to which people take seriously the principles of the American Creed.” One thing that really strikes me and leaves an imprint in my head is when we enter these times of “Creedal Passion”, the citizens of society usually implement a coping mechanism of some sort like moralism to try and bring the two sides of the gap closer together. If this is the case, and the sides become closer, how much do they actually fluctuate? Does it actually get dangerously close to the gap becoming closed, or do we just think we are doing something helpful and the government plays it off but is still being secretive in reality?…

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Madison brought many valid points into the equation. Factions need to be regulated by the government. A point that I find very important is that Madison stated that we cannot remove the causes of factions because differing opinions will always occur.2 This is very true, but Madison also brought up another point and that is: not everyone’s prayers can be answered. If every faction achieved their goal, there would be nothing but utter chaos. It is the government’s job to keep policies in action that support the public as a whole, rather than meet the needs of the few.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays